"normal" vs. "Mursten" vs. "Minitalia"


Re: "normal" vs. "Mursten" vs. "Minitalia"
#24
Steffen Wrote:we already have a strategy for re-used part numbers:
suffixes a, b, c, d, e, f, ...
IMHO we should _not_ add a second, different strategy like a trailing "r" or something.
Keep the one existing strategy, please.
Everything else would just create confusion and will not make things better!

Those letters are for changes to a mould over time, so a part might have a subtle difference from one time period to another (admittedly, sometimes they ARE used to correct bad initial numberings, but that's meant to be an exception).

This issue is having an entirely different design for the same number (a number long abandoned).

If an 'r' were used, it would make far more sense to use it like the 'c' portion, where more information would follow the 'r', so the r were the start of a suffix, not the entire suffix. Not that I'm advocating the 'r' approach, just trying to clarify the situation here...

-- joshua
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Re: "normal" vs. "Mursten" vs. "Minitalia" - by Joshua Delahunty - 2012-05-07, 15:04

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)